not to mention that the constitution isn't enforced much these days anyway. Patriot Act? Obamacare? How about the Feds raiding weed farms in California?
Sure sure, people will mention the commerce clause, whose meaning has conveniently (for the government) changed over the years. Any lawyer will tell you that when a law is passed, it retains the meaning it had when it was passed -- it's only with the constitution that it magically changes. This is why we needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but not to ban weed; it was understood that the federal government was not granted the authority by the states to ban substances, that is until the Supreme Court decided that it did have the power. btw, go California for standing up to the feds!!!!
Probably the most recent examples of violating the constitution are Arizona trying to enforce the border (can't blame them for trying) and, here's my favorite, the federal government trying to sue Arizona. They can't actually do that, the states have sovereign immunity and the lawsuit is a violation of the 11th amendment, but whatever.
Honestly, we had more freedom and paid less taxes when we were under British rule. I'd take this thought further, but I don't need the SS showing up at my door
Why should you, as part owner of the company, be held liable for crimes committed by the company before you owned it?
Simple. BECAUSE YOU OWN THE FUCKING COMPANY. You buy the company, you buy the liabilities.
Otherwise you're shifting the cost of the crimes of a company from those who own it to those who DON'T own it. How the fuck is that fair?
I agree with you 100%.
I just want to emphasize: companies don't commit crimes, people do. If "the company" knew of the crime being committed and didn't take action, yes, "the company" is liable and owners do need to be held responsible.
The perps themselves need to also pay (either a fine or jail time depending on the crime). Bernie Madoff and his ilk are great examples (I'm pleased that they sent his software developers to jail too. They were some of his biggest enablers). This may be where RajivSLK was coming from, but he didn't articulate it.
I bring this up for 2 reasons: 1. In our rage at "company behavior", we sometimes forget about the people, which is at least as important 2. If Michael Dell and Kevin Rollins (a former boss) are personally being made to pay up, that means that, aside from Dell being liable, they personally perpetrated crimes (possibly.....rant on SEC below).
This is my big beef with the SEC. We should actually enforce our fraud laws and when someone is accused of committing fraud, have a real investigation and possibly some arrests, not have the SEC come in, say that there's "accounting irregularities" and slap a person on the wrist with a puny fine. Half the time the SEC is in cahoots with these companies/people and are committing crimes themselves.
It deals with this specifically. The conclusion that the author came to is basically that people should have offices. Cubes and "open workspaces" are too noisy and distracting. This whole thing with open workspaces came out of the 70s -- I think you had to be on drugs to think it was a good idea tbh. Education/academia found out the hard way that it didn't work, but businesses haven't figured it out yet -- all businesses look at is "if I cram this many more people into a tight workspace, I save so much more money vs renting more space" without a care to productivity. Productivity is a hard thing to measure after all, but a good effort is made in peopleware and IBM did a study as well. IBM and Microsoft give their workers offices, the reasons are inside the book.
taxes are too high across the board. of course, one could make the case that, at the very least, all income taxes are illegal/unconstitutional. Taxes must be paid in legal tender and states can only make gold and silver legal tender, therefore you don't have to pay state income taxes. For what the federal government can do, the constitution says this:
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
So the government can't print money. To get around that, the federal reserve is "private". However, there's nothing in the constitution saying that they can confer this power to a "private" entity (nor charter one, but that's a different rant altogether), nor can they grant power greater than they themselves have to any other entity since "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" according to the 10th amendment.
So you don't have to pay federal income taxes either because our dollars aren't real money -- our federal legal tender laws are unconstitutional. Of course, this would never hold up in court, but our court system is a sham.
try watching youtube on it. It's nearly impossible. I have a sucky 384kb dsl connection, it feels like dialup. Can't even listen to last.fm. No.....everybody needs broadband, and people who think they don't need it are probably ignorant.
Slashdot Mirror
not to mention that the constitution isn't enforced much these days anyway. Patriot Act? Obamacare? How about the Feds raiding weed farms in California?
Sure sure, people will mention the commerce clause, whose meaning has conveniently (for the government) changed over the years. Any lawyer will tell you that when a law is passed, it retains the meaning it had when it was passed -- it's only with the constitution that it magically changes. This is why we needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but not to ban weed; it was understood that the federal government was not granted the authority by the states to ban substances, that is until the Supreme Court decided that it did have the power. btw, go California for standing up to the feds!!!!
Probably the most recent examples of violating the constitution are Arizona trying to enforce the border (can't blame them for trying)
and, here's my favorite, the federal government trying to sue Arizona. They can't actually do that, the states have sovereign immunity and the lawsuit is a violation of the 11th amendment, but whatever.
Honestly, we had more freedom and paid less taxes when we were under British rule. I'd take this thought further, but I don't need the SS showing up at my door
Why should you, as part owner of the company, be held liable for crimes committed by the company before you owned it?
Simple. BECAUSE YOU OWN THE FUCKING COMPANY.
You buy the company, you buy the liabilities.
Otherwise you're shifting the cost of the crimes of a company from those who own it to those who DON'T own it. How the fuck is that fair?
I agree with you 100%.
I just want to emphasize: companies don't commit crimes, people do. If "the company" knew of the crime being committed and didn't take action, yes, "the company" is liable and owners do need to be held responsible.
The perps themselves need to also pay (either a fine or jail time depending on the crime). Bernie Madoff and his ilk are great examples (I'm pleased that they sent his software developers to jail too. They were some of his biggest enablers). This may be where RajivSLK was coming from, but he didn't articulate it.
I bring this up for 2 reasons:
1. In our rage at "company behavior", we sometimes forget about the people, which is at least as important
2. If Michael Dell and Kevin Rollins (a former boss) are personally being made to pay up, that means that, aside from Dell being liable, they personally perpetrated crimes (possibly.....rant on SEC below).
This is my big beef with the SEC. We should actually enforce our fraud laws and when someone is accused of committing fraud, have a real investigation and possibly some arrests, not have the SEC come in, say that there's "accounting irregularities" and slap a person on the wrist with a puny fine. Half the time the SEC is in cahoots with these companies/people and are committing crimes themselves.
oh whoops, someone said this already. Mod this guy up: http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1629660&cid=31963338
yeah. well, for those prices, buy the kindle -- kindle version is going for $9.99 :-)
To answer the question: read peopleware!! http://www.amazon.com/Peopleware-Productive-Projects-Teams-Second/dp/0932633439
It deals with this specifically. The conclusion that the author came to is basically that people should have offices. Cubes and "open workspaces" are too noisy and distracting. This whole thing with open workspaces came out of the 70s -- I think you had to be on drugs to think it was a good idea tbh. Education/academia found out the hard way that it didn't work, but businesses haven't figured it out yet -- all businesses look at is "if I cram this many more people into a tight workspace, I save so much more money vs renting more space" without a care to productivity. Productivity is a hard thing to measure after all, but a good effort is made in peopleware and IBM did a study as well. IBM and Microsoft give their workers offices, the reasons are inside the book.
You agree w/ the Obama-rant? So this is wrong but the wire taps from the Bush era are okay?
I don't see why being anti-Obama means that you are pro-Bush.
This is true. I'm anti-Obama and pro-Ron Paul :-)
government sucks.
given what they want to do, that's a good thing.
For more info, read Irwin Schiff's "The Biggest Con"
http://www.amazon.com/Biggest-Con-How-Government-Fleecing/dp/0930374010
taxes are too high across the board. of course, one could make the case that, at the very least, all income taxes are illegal/unconstitutional. Taxes must be paid in legal tender and states can only make gold and silver legal tender, therefore you don't have to pay state income taxes. For what the federal government can do, the constitution says this:
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
So the government can't print money. To get around that, the federal reserve is "private". However, there's nothing in the constitution saying that they can confer this power to a "private" entity (nor charter one, but that's a different rant altogether), nor can they grant power greater than they themselves have to any other entity since "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" according to the 10th amendment.
So you don't have to pay federal income taxes either because our dollars aren't real money -- our federal legal tender laws are unconstitutional. Of course, this would never hold up in court, but our court system is a sham.
try watching youtube on it. It's nearly impossible. I have a sucky 384kb dsl connection, it feels like dialup. Can't even listen to last.fm. No.....everybody needs broadband, and people who think they don't need it are probably ignorant.
TV LCD site:bestbuy.com
Time-warping? Isn't that like the definition of a DVR? 'Cause I think prior art already exists with ReplayTV....